chap.escalate.auto

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a non-obvious side effect ('Records a route_decision artefact') and clarifies that the tool does not actually escalate, only reports. However, it does not disclose permissions required, reversibility, or other potential side effects, and no annotation context is available to fill these gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, primary action and outcome front-loaded. The second sentence about the route_decision artefact earns its place because it discloses an important side effect.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more contextual weight. It explains the purpose and the recorded artefact, but it does not describe the return shape, broader failure cases, or how this tool relates to escalation-action siblings. The detailed parameter schema partially compensates, but the absence of output schema and annotations leaves some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the schema itself is detailed, including examples and a specific refusal code (-32516), so the description does not need to compensate much.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Evaluate), a specific resource (a task's routing hints against the escalation policy), and a concrete outcome (report whether it should be escalated and to whom). It also distinguishes this from actual escalation actions like chap.escalate.raise by framing it as an evaluation/report rather than an escalation itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the assessment/reporting tool for escalation decisions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools such as chap.escalate.raise or chap.task.route. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative routing hints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.